Insane Letter to the Editor in tonight's paper from a teabagger

[doc03]

http://www.timesleaderonline.com/page/content.detail/id/514295.html?nav=5007

[Blue-Jay]

1. The stupidity is astounding.

[csziggy]

2. Sounds like a paraphrase of one of the right wing emails

Same stupidity.

[RKP5637]

3. Read it, which asylum were they from... n/t

[lpbk2713]

4. They close by threatening to vote them out of office.

How the hell are they going to do that with a 20% plurality? :rofl:

And the GOP keeps getting more fragmented with each passing day. :rofl:


These clowns are good for a laugh if nothing else.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. I think the phrase you want here is

"20% minority". A plurality in this case is either a majority, or more than any other group.

[hobbit709]

5. That makes stupid look like Einstein.

The question I have is "How did this person live long enough to write that without qualifying for a Darwin?"

[HughBeaumont]

6. Get the lobbyist OUT! All of him!

:rofl: Man, if stupid were a corn kernel, this loon would get the combine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Some that caught my eye

12. Since You piggies don't believe in Church and State, how about staying in Washington for Christmas and work, after all, it is a Holy day.

Like used to happen until oh 1901? Yeah I agree with him on that one. (And the Senate may have to if Harry Reed pulls that trigger...)

3. We want the lobbyist out of Capitol Hill immediately.

Oh this guy gets what part of the problem is... fully agreed.

Oh and here is the truly out of hte Tea Party Express countown to Apocalypse...

++++So, readers, please understand it is time to stand up for America and call your Senators and Congress people and let them know where You stand. If they can't stand up for us, they are against us and 2010 is coming fast.++++

Realize to these guys this is not a threat, but a promise. And that makes them a tad dangerous. but you see there is some ground of agreement. Fully, lets get the lobbyist out of the Hill...

[doc03]

9. Oh I can agree with getting the lobbyist out and some other

things. How about the term limits, every time the Democrats get control of Congress they dig that one up. What was that terrorist meeting in Illinois? I missed that one. Investigate Acorn and abolish it. Why bother to investigate she already knows they are guilty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Term limites have a way to strenthen lobbyists and staffers

been thinking about that one (while designing a future world political system)...

two terms no, but I considered it 24 years, aka four terms in the senate, or as many in the House, as a max limit, on either chamber or both. It would rob us of a few careers like Kennedy's. but it would be a civil service career. That may be the balance we need between staffers and these guys... It will give people time to become experienced, but will take away the abilty to serve for what is it... fifty years?

[cark]

21. 24 years - Can you imagine all of the Presidential Candidates?

Every senator term limited out will run for Pres. There will be debates with 19 candidates lined up across the stage. ;)

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Yeah but we would have turnover

[cark]

24. I'm all for turnover.

24 years is too long for my tastes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Yeah but 12 gives staffers and lobbyists way too much power

this is one of the problems in Cali... and for the extreme... look at the Mexican Congress... single term... the lobbyists and staff run the place.

[cark]

28. I was thinking 16 years max

put a limit on staff as well. Making rules for other people shouldn't be a career option. Sorry our country is more important than your job options.

[edbermac]

8. Someone please respond to this idiot.

I tried but I'm very allergic to stupidity.

[doc03]

10. Scroll down you can register and leave comment or

better yet send your own LTE.

[cark]

11. Find the common ground

Things like term limits, stemming lobbyist influence, auditing the Fed and balanced budgets. I think that the teabaggers could become allies on more issues than they are given credit for. There is growing discontent with corporate+government on both sides.

[doc03]

12. I could agree with those myself. They only believe in

term limits when the Democrats get control of Congress. The balanced budgets never were important until Jan. 2009.

[cark]

19. Are you talking about Teabaggers or Republicans?

I'm talking about the individual teabaggers that are fed up with the Republicans (better late than never). I'm talking about citizens not Repub party operatives, there is a difference. To say that they (individuals) just started wanting term limits is inaccurate. The 1994 Contract on America had both elements (balanced budgets and term limits) but as most campaign promises (like Obama is learning) are easier to talk about than enact. Politicians don't like relinquishing power or money.

The vast majority of people want term limits and I would suspect a balanced budget proposition would pass as well.

[doc03]

25. I would say about 99.9% of the Teabaggers

are Republicans. They like to claim they are a bi-partisan grassroots group, funny they never were concerned or even existed until a Democrat became President. The last time I ever heard of term limits is with Newt's Contract on America, we know haw far that went. The Republicans were great on balancing budgets when Bush was pResident weren't they?

[cark]

27. Like Progressives voting for Democrats

Conservative/libertarian/teabaggers vote for Republicans as their version of the least of 2 evils. It doesn't mean they agree, support or are happy with everything thing did, just like many progressives aren't overjoyed with all Obama is doing. It isn't like all Republican politicians were embraced with open arms at many of the 'parties'.

I guess it is easier to be outraged when your guys are out of power just like I haven't heard alot of anti-war anti-patriot act rabble directed at Obama like it was Bush.

[Blue-Jay]

16. Bullshit!

Where were those dumb fuckers before 2008? I don't want allies like that.

Bonus Question: Which president has done the most in recent history to limit the access of lobbyists to the White House? (Look it up and show your work)

[EmeraldCityGrl]

13. "We want a Federal Prosecutor to check into each and everyone of Your family and friends."

Yep, constitutional loving statement there.

They just didn't see it coming and they are just now awakening from their shock, A black man is president.

Poor babies, it's going to be a rough eight years.

[47of74]

14. They must've been really hard up for letters to publish

The paper where I live never would have published that letter. First off it is way too long for them - they have a limit of 250 words. Secondly it is all very disjointed and rambling, and has a quality to it that says it was written by someone who got a D- in basic high school level grammar.

[MrMickeysMom]

18. They keep validating what WILL happen in 2010...

... based on all the tea baggers who hold parties and pound on a keyboard, they'll keep sounding the alarm for other fed up idiot tea baggers to invent what happened in their Glen Beck chapter of history- real history books be damned.

This kind of thing is bound to electrify more in the stupid idiots base, disgusting progressives further.

Question: Who's gonna get angry enough to push their party in the right 2010 direction? Looks like the fed up idiot tea bagger party!

This makes me want to spit up. You can't fix stupid, but you can excite your base. Seems some like DO want to reach out, and some DON'T.

[VOX]

20. "I am gladly a gun carrying, Bible toting person" -- So, religion IS indeed a weapon...

What a clueless right-wing, neo-fascist asshole.

For now, being exhausted from a long day at work, I can only muster up the following:

:nuke: Go to hell, Barb Redlinger, you and all the "too many others to mention." :nuke:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. Typical GOP fool nt

[ET Awful]

29. LMAO . . . it starts off saying that we the people hired the editor and goes on to say

that we should send a whole platoon of marines . . . . buahahahaha that's what, 30-40 people?

And if the letter writer is so willing to die for her country and is so supportive of war, why is she writing this letter to a local paper instead of from Iraq or Afghanistan?